The daily herald. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1886-1887, 1887-05-09
MONDAY. MAY 3, 1887.
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
The Increased Cigar Duty TuR 10 Ashs IN ib
judicial Cudbk
Declared Contrary to the Constitution
Decision BY the Full Bench.

Decision BY the Full Bench.
Or Saturday last Judge McCully
filed the opinion Of the Supreme Court,
prepared by him, in the case Of Hyman
Bros. vs.. John NJ. Kapena, Collector
General Of Customs, heard in banco at
the April term, 1887, before Judd, c.
j., McCully, Preston and Bickerton,
u. The opinion voids part Of one Of
the tariff laws Of last session Of the
Legislature, and being very important
its full text is given below.
This case comes by appeal from the
Police Court Of Honolulu. 1t is pre-
sented to this Court on the following
agreed statement Of facts and the ques-
ton reserved
9TH following facts are agreed upon:
That plaintiffs IN the month Of Nov
ember, 1886, imported and duly en-
tered under bond at the Custom House
at the port Of Honolulu an invoice OF
Manila cigars Of the value Of nine hun
bred and ffiy.two dollars (Sos2); that
on tile third day Of December, 1886,
plaintiffs withdrew from bond ten thou
sand Of said cigars Of the value Of one
and paid TO defendant len ;ii'e dIoiiSfs Per 5eT
thousand; that in addition to said duty
defendant exacted and plaintiffs paid
under protest further duty of 2s per
cent upon the value Of said cigars,
amounting to the sum OF $2o.7s; that
plaintiffs also in the month Of January,
1887, imported and duly entered under
bond at said Custom House an invoice
Of Havana cigars Of the value Of 5000
that on the 24th day OF said January
plaintiffs withdrew from bond said
cigars and paid a duty OF 10 per cent
on the same; that in addition TO said
duty defendant exacted and plaintiff:
paid under protest a further duty of 2s
per cent upon the value Of said cigars
amounting TO the sum Of $I57.5 so; thai
defendant would not allow said cigar
TO be Withdrawn from bond wthou
payment Of said duties Of IS per cent
plaintiffs claim that the law enacted
at the session OF 1886, to wit, so mucl
as relates to cigars, Of section Of al
Act approved October 18th, 1886, en-
titled, AN Act amendatory Of section
Of chapter 20 Of the Session Laws o
1878, relating to import duties upor
wine, being chapter 81 of said laws, j.
unconstitutional.
at is agreed to request the Court t
reserve the question of the constitu
tionality OF said portion of said law
And that il said law is held good judg
ment shall be entered for the defend
ant with costs, and if said law is helC
void so far as relates to cigars judg
ment shall be entered for the plaintiff.
for the sum Of $IS7.2s with costs"
The title concerning which the ques
ton Of constitutionaliiy is raised is ''Ar
Act amendatory Of section ?, chapter
28, Session Laws of 1873, relating to
import duties upon Wines" The title
Of the Act Of 1873 which is referred to i.
Gan Act to amend an Act entitled AN
Act to Increase the Import Duties
upon Certain Goods, approved the
z7th day Of September, 1876" The
certain goods upon which duties are
increased by the Act are more than
forty articles or classes OF articles,
among them three classes Of wines,
The Act Of 1886 imposes specific
duties on eight classes Of goods includ-
ing the three classes Of wines.
Article II Of the Constitution reads
"To avoid improper influences which
may result from intermixing in one and
the same Act such things as have nc
proper relation to each other, every
law shall embrace but one object and
that shall be expressed in its title" A
like article is found in the Constitu-
tons of majority of the States Of the
American Union, some of them using
the term Zone subject" and some zone
object" The purpose Of this proyi-
sion is, first, to prevent h0dge POdge OF
''log rolling" legislation, and, secondly,
TO prevent surprise or fraud upon the
Legislature by means of provisions in
bills Of which the titles give no intima-